KATHMANDU: Almost sixteen years have passed since Nepal established its embassy in Brazil. The decision to open the mission was made on January 21, 2010, by the Cabinet led by then-Prime Minister Madhav Kumar Nepal.

In 16 years, a child enters adolescence, but the Nepali mission in Brazil has yet to rise above its infancy. Statistics clearly show that the embassy has not provided returns in proportion to its investment. For example, in the last fiscal year, the mission’s expenditure is Rs 61.24 million. However, in that fiscal year, the exports from Nepal have not even matched the expenditure. In other words, only Rs 36.20 million worth of Nepali products have reached Brazil during that period.

Along with Brazil, the government of then-Prime Minister Nepal had simultaneously decided to open embassies in Kuwait, South Africa, and Canada. However, except for Kuwait, none of these embassies hold any strategic or diplomatic importance, nor have they contributed to the country’s economy.

Then-Prime Minister Madhav Kumar Nepal’s move to open embassies arbitrarily, without justification or standards, was also followed by his successor, Baburam Bhattarai. In 2013, Bhattarai added embassies in Oman and Bahrain for political expediency. Additionally, he authorized the opening of consulates in Guangzhou, China, and Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.

The practice of appointing ambassadors based on party quotas was not broken even by CPN (Maoist Center) Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal ‘Prachanda’.

During his tenure as Prime Minister in 2017, he appointed Bharat Rayamajhi, a leader from Rastriya Prajatantra Party, as ambassador to Spain without proper justification, and in 2023, he appointed Sanil Nepal, from the Nepali Congress quota, as ambassador to Portugal. Diplomat Nilambar Acharya says, “Why was an embassy needed in Portugal when there was already one in nearby Spain? It is incomprehensible.”

After becoming Prime Minister again last year, Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli decided to open consulates in San Francisco and Dallas in the United States, and in Dubai, United Arab Emirates. KP Sharma Oli, during his first tenure as Prime Minister in 2018, added a permanent mission in Vienna, Austria, to oversee UN agencies. Meanwhile, there is already a separate mission in Geneva, Switzerland, specifically for UN agencies.

The contradiction is that while other countries are rapidly closing their embassies in Nepal, Nepal seems to be on a campaign to increase the number of its missions abroad. Currently, there are 25 resident embassies from various countries in Nepal. Five countries have already closed their embassies in Nepal. Recently, North Korea has decided to close its embassy. In 2017, Denmark shut down its embassy that had been operating for 25 years, while Italy closed its embassy in 1997, Poland in 1981, and Indonesia in 1967.

Over the past 15 years, Nepal has added 15 new foreign missions. Currently, the operation of the 40 existing missions costs over RS 4.50 billion annually. According to Bhesprasad Bhurtel, Head of Accounts at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, if the four announced new missions are added, the annual expenditure will reach RS 6 billion.

On the international stage, Nepal’s objective is to promote national interests, achieve economic growth, reduce poverty, and realize sustainable development goals by leveraging international relations in fifteen national plans. Similarly, it is stated that economic diplomacy should be used strategically and result-oriented to strengthen international economic relations and reduce trade deficits. These plans also include increasing the number of tourists visiting Nepal. However, Nepali missions abroad do not seem to show interest in achieving the objectives outlined in these fifteen plans.

Take Switzerland as an example. Nepal has a permanent mission in Geneva, yet the number of Swiss tourists visiting Nepal is embarrassingly low. In 2024, only 11 Swiss tourists came to Nepal.

Compared to the state’s investment, the performance of most missions is very weak. The Office of the Auditor General has also highlighted this issue. In its 61st report, the Auditor General questioned the performance capacity of all Nepali missions abroad. The report pointed out that Nepali missions have failed to establish bilateral trade mechanisms in the respective countries, and have not been able to prepare and implement employee performance indicators.

Nepali diplomatic missions that lack a clear mandate or purpose.

Unprofitable trade

Although Nepal has an embassy in Washington D.C., a permanent mission in New York, and a consulate-general, two additional consulates-general were added in Dallas and San Francisco without justification, bringing the total number of Nepali missions in the United States to five. Compared to other countries, the missions in the U.S. incur higher expenses. The decision to add these two missions has raised the annual expenditure of all five missions to around RS 1 billion.

Maintaining five diplomatic missions in the United States lacks justification, especially given that Nepal’s trade with the U.S. accounts for less than two percent of its total trade. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has no clear answer regarding the purpose of adding missions when the existing ones are already underperforming. 

According to a diplomatic officer working in New York, the Dallas and San Francisco missions were added to hold a once-a-year traveling camp for passports, which would add an extra RS 40 million in annual expenditure to the state. Former ambassador Professor Lokraj Baral says, “At a time when it is already too late to close unproductive missions, sending personnel and adding new missions impulsively is completely wrong.”

Compared to India, Nepal’s trade with China and the U.S. is smaller. Yet, in India, which accounts for more than 60 percent of Nepal’s foreign trade, there are only two Nepali missions: the embassy in New Delhi, which is the oldest, and a consulate-general in Kolkata. Meanwhile, in China, where trade is less than with India, the number of Nepali missions has currently reached five.

Former ambassador Deep Kumar Upadhyay says, “The trend of adding missions in places where they are not needed while neglecting places that require them clearly reflects self-interest. This does not benefit the country.”

Recently, not only the newly added missions but also older missions have proven to be unjustified. One example is the embassy opened in Egypt in 1966. In fiscal year 2023/24, Nepal exported only RS 7,000 worth of goods to Egypt. Meanwhile, the annual budget for operating the embassy was RS 70.26 million. Interestingly, four years ago, exports to Egypt were RS 5.71 million.

Another example of an unproductive Nepali mission is the embassy in Yangon, Myanmar. Established in 1965 with GB Yakthumba as the first ambassador, it has also failed to justify its existence. In the fiscal year 2023/24, Nepal exported only RS 8.9 million to Myanmar, and in the last fiscal year, only RS 20.15 million worth of goods were exported, while the embassy’s annual operating cost is approximately RS 40 million.

The situation is similar in Oman. In terms of trade, exports to Oman in the last fiscal year were around RS 12.74 million. In Saudi Arabia, neither trade volume nor the number of visitors coming from there to Nepal is impressive. Yet, despite having an existing embassy, the government opened another consulate-general in Jeddah 11 years ago, increasing state expenditure. That mission, which failed to attract tourists, has also not been able to boost exports to reduce the trade deficit over the past  four years. 

In fiscal year 2024/25, Nepal’s trade deficit with Saudi Arabia had already reached RS 9.02 billion, while three years ago, the deficit was RS 7.80 billion. Nevertheless, the Nepali missions in Jeddah and Riyadh continue to cost the state RS 270 million annually, despite failing to produce results.

The trade deficit persists, and foreign missions have not undertaken significant initiatives to attract foreign citizens to Nepal. Whether new or old, most missions have failed to draw tourists. From countries such as South Korea, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia, the number of visitors to Nepal in the past three years has been disappointing, and export trade remains low. Former ambassador Deep Kumar Upadhyay states, “Most missions use budget constraints as an excuse for inaction. Since they fail even to undertake feasible work, there are no tangible results.”

India: Alarming trade deficit

The number of Nepali missions in India is already limited. However, even the performance of the existing missions appears weak. The Nepali Consul-General in Kolkata, Jhakka Prasad Acharya, claims that the mission he leads facilitates export trade between Nepal and India. He had also stated at an event in Birgunj on April 28, 2025, “Within our jurisdiction, we will do our best to facilitate and enhance trade.”

As claimed by Acharya, the website of the Kolkata Consulate-General mentions objectives such as increasing economic diplomacy between Nepal and India, promoting tourism and trade, facilitating transportation, attracting Indian investment, and collaborating in technology and knowledge. However, missions in India appear more focused on political activities.

Consequently, their role in identifying areas to reduce the trade deficit and facilitating implementation has remained weak. Over the past four fiscal years, the trade deficit between Nepal and India has exceeded RS 3.76 trillion. 

The Nepali Embassy in New Delhi is one of the country’s major foreign missions. Its operation costs approximately RS 190 million annually, while the Kolkata mission incurs an additional RS 50 million. However, these missions have also failed not only to boost exports but also to attract Indian tourists. According to data from the Department of Immigration, the number of Indian tourists visiting Nepal in 2023 was 319,936, which declined slightly to 317,774 in 2024. By April 25, 2025, a total of 81,928 Indian tourists had visited Nepal. Former ambassador Lokraj Baral adds, “Our missions have failed both to reduce the trade deficit and to increase tourism.”

The Nepali government had given great importance to the climate-related event “Sagarmatha Sambaad” and invited Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. However, he did not attend.

Only Indian Environment Minister Bhupendra Yadav participated from India.

At the G20 Summit organized by India in New Delhi, world leaders gathered, yet India did not even invite its close neighbor Nepal as a guest. This situation has indirectly raised questions about the capabilities of Nepali missions. Diplomat Nilambar Acharya says, “Due to serious issues in coordination between the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Nepali missions abroad, the missions have not been effective. Therefore, reforms are needed not only in the missions but also within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.”

China: Many missions, little impact

Nepal’s foreign trade with China is limited to around 10–11 percent of total foreign trade. Although trade with China is less than with India, the missions added arbitrarily have produced results far below the expenditures incurred. Nepal’s first diplomatic mission was established in in Lhasa. Despite limited trade growth, Nepal has missions in Lhasa, Beijing, and Hong Kong, and additional consulates-general have been opened in Chengdu and Guangzhou. Lhasa’s Consul-General, Laxmi Prasad Niraula, admits that the annual expenditure has increased due to the additional consulates. When asked whether results are satisfactory relative to the costs, he counters, “How can a mission operate effectively with only two staff? How can achievements be realized?”

To strengthen economic diplomacy with China, a Joint Secretary–level Minister (Economic) has been appointed to the Nepali Embassy in Beijing, as the four existing consulates-general are considered inadequate. The government has only created the Minister (Economic) position in a few major missions, such as those in India and China. However, the officials holding this post have also failed to effectively advance Nepal’s economic diplomacy.

After the promulgation of the new constitution, the government has emphasized strengthening bilateral relations with China and increasing economic diplomacy, tourism, and export trade. This may explain the addition of extra posts under the names of consulates-general and the Economic Minister. Ironically, despite these measures, five missions—both new and old—have not been able to strengthen economic diplomacy with Nepal’s northern neighbor. Consequently, there has been little improvement in Nepal’s export trade over the past four years. Nepal’s trade deficit with China has now exceeded RS 1.19 trillion. According to government data, the total trade deficit in fiscal year 2024/25 was RS 338 billion.

Alongside trade imbalances, the missions have played almost no role in attracting Chinese tourists. Over the past three years, the number of tourists from China visiting Nepal has been disappointing. Out of a population of 1.41 billion, only 118,886 Chinese tourists visited Nepal in 2024. As of 25 April 2025, the number of Chinese tourists entering Nepal is approximately 34,950.

Nepali missions in China are weak in economic diplomacy and have not achieved tangible results in bilateral matters. For instance, Chinese President Xi Jinping visited Nepal in 2019, during which significant agreements were signed between the two countries.

However, the Nepali missions in China have not shown active involvement in the effective implementation of those agreements.

During that visit, President Xi had announced aid to Nepal worth approximately RS 56 billion, which has still not been delivered. Likewise, strategic projects planned under partnerships with China, including the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), have shown no concrete progress.

Framework for mission reduction

Since the promulgation of the new constitution, every government has announced plans to review the number of Nepali missions abroad. In fiscal year 2022/23, the government’s policy and program document stated that a committee would be formed to review the number of Nepali embassies. The budget speech also promised that the number of missions would be reviewed based on necessity and justification, after analyzing changing circumstances and workloads. 

The government even pledged to provide services through “virtual embassies” in places without a physical Nepali mission. However, these commitments outlined in the policy and budget were largely ignored.

On December 7, 2018, the then-Foreign Minister Pradeep Gyawali formed a ‘Mission Review Task Force’, chaired by former ambassador Rudra Nepal. The task force conducted field studies in some countries with Nepali missions and prepared a preliminary report. However, due to vested interests among Ministry of Foreign Affairs staff, the task force was unable to complete its work. Chairperson Rudra Nepal stated, “The task force could not reach the final stage.”

The Cabinet had also formed a High-Level Foreign Policy Review Committee on April 12, 2018, chaired by then-Foreign Minister Prakash Sharan Mahat. According to committee member and diplomat Nischalnath Pandey, embassies that were opened only for political reasons or failed to contribute to economic development have not been closed in a timely manner. He asks, “Have there been high-level visits from the countries where we have missions? Has economic investment or aid come? Has the country gained economic or diplomatic benefits? If not, why should the embassy remain?”

The Office of the Auditor General has also highlighted the need to review Nepali missions abroad. In its 61st report, the auditor recommended reviewing missions based on the number of Nepalis in the mission’s jurisdiction, economic activity, labor diplomacy, and the presence of foreign missions from those countries in Nepal. The goal should be to restructure the missions to an appropriate number.

However, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which has a history of canceling its own decisions and announcements, cannot be relied upon to implement the auditor’s recommendations.

Nevertheless, it is already too late to rein in the practice of arbitrarily opening new missions. Many missions that were opened without standards have become irrelevant in the changing context. 

In Asia, Nepal could immediately close embassies in Sri Lanka, Pakistan, and Myanmar. Sri Lanka could be managed through India, Myanmar through Thailand, and the officials and staff of the three missions in the U.S. could be given additional responsibility to cover Canada as well.

Embassies in Portugal and Spain, which were opened for political patronage without study, have no justification. The Nepali Embassy in Berlin can handle its responsibilities there, while most embassies in Brazil, Oman, Egypt, Bahrain, Kuwait, South Africa, and Denmark could be closed. 

For labor diplomacy, missions in the UAE, Malaysia, Qatar, and Israel are necessary. However, in Middle Eastern countries with few or no Nepali workers, missions that have become a burden to the country must be closed immediately. Merging the embassies in Japan and South Korea into a single mission is also feasible.

If the government so desires, it could immediately close at least 19 foreign missions that have failed to justify their existence. Yet, little attention has been paid. 

Most of the consulates-general added arbitrarily in China, the U.S., Dubai, Jeddah, and additional U.S. consulates after 2010 have shown little work. Even the permanent mission in Vienna has produced minimal results. Security and foreign affairs expert Indra Adhikari says, “Some of the recent missions were established not out of national necessity but to give opportunities to certain people. This practice must end.”

Shutting down at least 19 underperforming missions—or merging some with nearby embassies—could save Nepal an estimated Rs. 1.5 to 2 billion annually in avoidable expenses. Yet, those who make arbitrary decisions to send their personnel to new missions appear oblivious to this fact. Diplomat Pandey concludes, “Missions that were opened out of vested interests and fail to produce results must now be reduced.”